This text was originally written in 2012, with publication delayed until 2024. While the text is mostly the 2012 version, I have made some adjustments.
I do not (be it in 2012 or 2024) address contractions involving “get”, e.g. the transformation of “got to” into “gotta”. (Which might or might not be implicitly reflected in items two and three, below, and the potential confusion between “got a” and “got to”.) While a worthy sub-topic, such contractions were likely not much on my mind at the time of original writing and a re-working to consider them, including when they might reduce or increase ambiguity, or otherwise make matters better or worse, would be a fair bit of extra work. I note, however, that they have no place in written language and often sound ugly in spoken language.
As a disclaimer, I do not always practice what I preach (especially, in older texts)—language is largely imitative and the mere awareness of a problem does not guarantee immunity to it. (Indeed, cf. below, my 2012 version demonstrates how I managed to fall into the trap of misusing “get” in a text discussing the misuse of “get”.)
The seemingly harmless word “get”, especially in the form “gets”, is becoming ubiquitous as a highly generic verb. In many cases, the use is grammatically at least dubious; in most, it is stylistically poor. The English language loses in clarity and understandability through such uses—and becomes considerably uglier. (For more on language change, see e.g. an earlier blog entry.)
With the wide variety of uses, I make no claims at completeness; however, to look at some variations based on representative examples:
He got a fish:
The largest problem here is ambiguity: Did he receive the fish as a gift? Was the fish his catch from a fishing trip? Did he retrieve the fish (e.g. from a freezer) to present it to someone else? (With plenty of variations; other example categories are likely possible too.)
A sign of the scope of the problem is shown by the 2012 version, where I wrote “Did he get the fish as a gift?”. Here, I fell into the trap myself: Did he (a) get (=procure) the fish as a gift for someone else, or (b) get (=receive) it as a gift from someone else.
He has got a fish:
This example is more or less harmless (style aside). However, the “got” is redundant and we would be better off with “... has a ...”. Further, there is an unfortunate closeness to the following item and confusion is possible—especially, if someone “has got two fish”.
He has got to fish:
Very ugly and unnecessarily lengthy. A plain “has to fish” is vastly superior; “must fish” might be even better; and “needs to fish” is a good back-up.
There is arguably some difference in meaning between these formulations; however, in almost all cases, these differences can be ignored in a modern context. Indeed, I would be hard-pressed to give examples illustrating them off the top of my head.
He got to fish:
In normal use, the ambiguity is likely tolerable or contextually clear. (Contrast meanings of “got to” like “was allowed to” and “had and took the opportunity to”—but even here the use of a more specific phrasings than “got to” would be preferable).
However, the phrasing is very ugly and (in sloppy language or with spoken language) there is a non-trivial risk of confusion with “has got to”. (Where the “has” is occasionally left out or replaced with a mere “s”—“he’s got to fish”.) Some dia-/socio-/whatnot-lects might even leave out the “has” as a matter of course.
He got tired / he got beaten / he got laid:
The last case could remain as a fix formulation; however, the others should use “became” or “grew” respectively “was”. Overall, we see ambiguity, an unfortunate variation in who is implied to do something, and ugliness. In a worst case, it might be impossible to differ between these cases or some variation of a “got fish” for some third word. (Note the below “baby got back” for a borderline example.)
Ambiguity need not be limited to “low brow” expressions, however:
I recall being highly confused the first time that I watched “Forest Gump”: Why did Jenny ask God to “make me a bird”? As turns out, she did not want him to make a bird for her (my first interpretation)—but to make her into a bird. Being a little more explicit would have helped. Indeed, I would recommend using a different formulation altogether, e.g. “turn me into a bird”.
Above, the replacement “was beaten” also has an ambiguity, where interpretations like being defeated and being battered are possible; and e.g. “lost the game”, respectively “received a beating”, might be a better choice. (Also, see an excursion for “was” vs. “got”.)
Where very poor or very non-standard English is spoken, far worse examples can be found. I have e.g. seen some cases where “get” apparently is used instead of “is”... A U.S. slang expression like “baby got back” can be a mystery:
Did baby return? Does baby have a big behind? Did baby have a big behind?
Similarly poor is “Lady got style”—“has [got]” or “had [got]”? (In addition to ambiguities already discussed.)
My recommendation for those uncertain: Do not use variations of “get” at all. In almost all cases, one of the many alternate formulations are as good or better—and the best other choice is never (?) so bad that it hurts. (Those more proficient should, obviously, feel free to use “get” in uncontroversial cases.)
An interesting point when comparing “got” and “was” is that “get” could have an attractiveness to reduce an ambiguity.
Consider a claim like “he was exhausted”: This likely refers to his state at the time of the “was”; however, it could also point to a process or something being done to him at that time. In the latter case, a phrasing like “he got exhausted” would disambiguate. Even here, however, better options are available. Contrast e.g. “he was exhausted” (state), “he grew exhausted” (process), and “X exhausted him”/“he was being exhausted” (something done to him; with additional process elements). (A somewhat similar point can be made around the above “was beaten”, but with a lesser likelihood of confusion.)
I wish to recall seeing cases that are not so easily disambiguated, but none occurs to me at the time of writing.
The problem is not limited to the specific form of “was” (singular past tense). If in doubt, the above examples can be modified to use “were” (plural past tense; with additional risks from subjunctive meanings and other overloading). However, I can, off the top of my head, think of no case involving “is” and “are” (present tense). For instance, “he is exhausted” necessarily refers to a state, notwithstanding some ambiguity on how that state was reached.
The following is an automatically generated list of other pages linking to this one. These may or may not contain further content relevant to this topic.